Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu gave about two paragraphs for the foreign policy in his speech. This short reference is not enough to understand Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu’s real views and it also shows that the evaluations of Turkey’s recent agenda on the multifaceted and active foreign policy are not the first to discuss for the new leader. For instance, a few clues on what he thinks about the nuclear weapon debates, which might lead to a war in the region, and the Palestine problem will be better. Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu says that the foreign policy should be handled like mastery in chess and the Administration tries to deal with the foreign politics personally, sentimentally, and with politique de faite accomplie. At this point, there seems an ambiguous problem; yet we do not have any clues on solution.

 

Although the Administration was gently criticized for the foreign policies, it was done with an extremely severe style/tone: “The foreign policies cannot be dealt with sentimentally and with a stiff bargain. Turkey’s foreign policies come to the table for $1 billion… This cannot be called as the foreign politics. In law this is called as treason. “Although Turkey has gained prestige as a confidential negotiator in a number of discussions in the international arena and even Turkey has disagreed with the USA on the uranium deal with Iran recently, the criticism of these policies as “treason” can be considered at least as a partisan attitude. As in the last days Turkey has caught the attention with its objective but friendly relations with every country and its active policies.  

 

One of the issues Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu touched upon is the European Union issue. Because this issue is especially related to many issues like domestic policy, reforms, elections, etc., it gains much more importance. In his speech, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu argues that the EU is an important modernization project; but they practice double standard on Turkey and the EU’s support for the recent constitutional amendments in Turkey is an example of it. It seems that Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu believes the idea that the EU adopts attitudes on domestic policy and move with tactics. Is not it usual for the EU to support the candidate countries for many legal, social, and economic amendments? Then, he implies that the EU reports do not reflect the truths. It may signal that the new CHP continue its recent unwilling and opposite attitudes towards the EU membership.

 

It is interesting that Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu did not give any place to the relations with the EU in his speech. However, he has a general criticism and it is like a Third World style: Turkey’s dependence on outside financial sources. This may be a sign of the CHP’s anti-capitalist, protectionist, and anti-globalist attitude that has emerged/ may emerge especially after the international crisis.

 

In his speech, there is no place for the relations with the Middle East. There is indeed no Middle East. There is Cyprus; yet it is more a subject of domestic policy rather than of the foreign policy: “You see Cyprus. The people in Cyprus refused the power of the AKP (The Justice and Development Party) in the elections. Now it is time for our people. In the coming elections we will reverse the cycle of the AKP like the people in Cyprus did.” Although we do not have accurate information on the details of the Cyprus policy, we have the impression that Mr. Eroğlu won the elections with the help of the CHP. Did the CHP have a silver bullet and were we unable to see it?

 

In his speech, because it is related to terror, Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu does not touch the issue of relations with Iraq, which is both related to domestic and foreign policy. And I suppose he does not say anything obvious about the Armenian Issue. With the criticism of “The problem cannot be solved when you say that you will sign it”, he may mean the relations with Armenia or those with Cyprus.

 

What the new CHP should recognize is the fact that Turkey’s foreign policy is well beyond its old static and isolationist days. There is the foreign policy agenda that follows the dynamics in the world closely. In Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu’s speech, the reference to the foreign policies on Cyprus, Dubai, and the EU is not compatible with the complex and dynamic foreign policy agenda of Turkey and the world.

 

There are myriad questions on the foreign policy to be asked Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu. For instance, his ideas on the international financial crisis, international agreements, nuclear weapons, energy, and how the relations between the USA and Israel will be, etc. It is not possible to get answers to these questions, at the bottom of the ladder. We will learn in time.

In a nutshell, there is not a sign of Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu’s vision for an objective, active, and strong foreign policy. In general, it was not possible to understand from his whole speech what kind of visions on foreign policy and international relations that Mr. Kılıçdaroğlu has. However, it is too early to lose our hope.